Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Resurrection versus immortality of the soul
There are two books that survey the history of Jewish thought on the afterlife. Neil Gillman’s The death of death, was published in 1997. Leila Leah Bronner’s book appeared fourteen years later and covers the same basic trajectory. One of the main differences is their respective treatment of resurrection in the Tanakh.
Gillman sees no hint of resurrection in the earlier portions of the Tanakh. Later passages, however, are at least considered for such a possibility. He views Ezekiel 37 as a purely political vision, and the relevant passages in Isaiah are, for the most part, questioned at best. He interprets Daniel 12 through the lens of the historical situation. While he does recognize biblical antecedents in the text, it is the immediate history which provides the clue to its meaning.
Gillman, like many scholars, places the writing of this portion of Daniel in the reign of Antiochus IV. Previous episodes of persecution in Jewish history had been described as punishment for a sinful nation. But, under Antiochus pious Jews were attacked specifically because they were faithful to Torah. In short, this was ‘the experience of Job writ large’ (Gillman 1997:87). The righteous were suffering and there seemed to be no explanation. Daniel’s words in Daniel 12 were meant to address this specific need.
This passage is not concerned with the resurrection of masses of Jews, nor with the resurrection of all the dead, nor the dead of prior generations. Nor is the author concerned with the mechanics of resurrection. He is concerned only with those who died in the persecution of his day. (Gillman 1997:89)
Bronner, on the other hand, sees evidence of resurrection beginning much earlier. It is at least alluded to in the narratives of Elijah and Elisha raising others from the dead (Bronner 2011:25). There are also several verbs that, in certain contexts, argue for the belief in resurrection. Following John Sawyer, Bronner focuses on the words ‘to awaken’ (Jr 51:39), ‘to stand and to live’ (Ezk 37:4-10), ‘to return or restore’ (Ps 80:15-20) and others. These words come together in Hosea 6:1-3 which speaks of healing, although Bronner sees ‘more hints of bodily resurrection than physical healing’ (Bronner 2011:32). Isaiah 26:19 has a ‘high density’ of such language and therefore ‘clearly asserts the resurrection of the dead, proclaiming that those who lie in the dust of the earth will rise and shout with joy’ (Bronner 2011:34). These key words also figure prominently in Daniel 12:2-3: ‘The verb “to live” appears paired with “to stand up,” and the causative form of “to wake up” is there as well, emphasizing the resurrection theme. This passage is apparently the culmination of a long tradition of conceptualizing resurrection’ (Bronner 2011:35).
After the Biblical record, each author turns to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. Here, Gillman sees ‘significant references’ to resurrection. These texts provided a bridge between Daniel and the ‘far more fully developed theology of the afterlife’ of the rabbis. For Gillman, resurrection became associated not only with God’s retribution (as in Daniel), but with God’s power as well (Gillman 1997:101-105).
In the same historical period, another view of the afterlife would enter Judaism and function as a rival for resurrection from that time on. It is the concept of the immortality of the soul. This idea can be traced to the Greeks at least as far back as the sixth century BCE, although it would later gain its greatest expression in the works of Plato. In contrast to resurrection, this view states that the soul is indestructible and will continue to exist without the body. The apocryphal book, The wisdom of Solomon was one of the most important Jewish works to incorporate this understanding. As Bronner notices, the pervasiveness of both of these views – resurrection and the soul’s immortality – ‘stand in stark contrast to the Hebrew Bible, with its veiled hints and allusions’ (Bronner 2011:57).
Traditional Judaism embraced resurrection in the early rabbinic period. This was seen first of all in liturgy. The Amidah was recited three times a day and continues to hold a prominent place in traditional liturgy. This prayer includes paraphrases from Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19. It is now ‘all Israel’ that will experience resurrection, going beyond Daniel’s view (in Gillman’s opinion) that only the righteous Jews of Daniel’s day will be resurrected (Gillman 1997:123-127).
It is with the writing of the Mishnah (c 200 CE) that ‘the doctrine of resurrection has become authoritative Jewish teaching’. In a famous passage (Sanhedrin 10:1), it is stated that among those who have no portion in the world to come are those who say that resurrection of the dead does not derive from Torah (Gillman 1997:113). Both the concept of resurrection itself and the belief that it originates from the Torah are now firmly entrenched in traditional Judaism. As Bronner notices, a new vocabulary came with this new understanding. These include phrases such as ‘the resurrection of the dead’ and ‘the world to come’ (Bronner 2011:60).
THE MESSIAH
The role of the Messiah has a long and winding history in Jewish tradition. The word has meant different things at different times, and there is quite a bit of leeway regarding interpretation (Greenstone 1906, Silver 1927, Patai 1979, Schiffman 1987). In the popular mindset, a few characteristics have jumped to the forefront and dominated the discussion. These are, perhaps unsurprisingly, the very attributes that would distinguish the concept from the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus. Whatever else the Messiah may mean in Jewish tradition, the picture that most often emerges is one that automatically disqualifies Jesus. Joseph Telushkin explains the commonly held view.
The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus’ behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah prophesied: “And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies.
Because of this, any suggestion that Jesus may have risen from the dead becomes irrelevant in the Jewish world. If he does not fit the job description, the rest of his resume means very little. This remains one of the key reasons why Jewish scholars have been less interested in exploring the question of his resurrection. Dan Cohn Sherbok wrote the following.
For twenty centuries, however, Jews have steadfastly rejected the New Testament accounts of his survival after crucifixion. No doubt this was largely due to the Jewish unwillingness to grant Jesus Messianic status. After all, Jesus did not fulfill the traditional role of the Messiah. (Cohn-Sherbok 1996:191)
In recent decades, New Testament scholarship has been increasingly recognizing the importance of the first century Jewish context. Longstanding assumptions about Judaism and Christianity are being re-evaluated. During the time of Jesus, there was no such thing as Jewish-Christian relations, at least not as it later came to be. This is an anachronistic approach. Jesus and his message are firmly planted in the soil of Second Temple Judaism. Paul’s message as well needs to be understood in this light, and not based on the boundary markers of Judaism and Christianity as they developed centuries later. This has profound significance for questions about which views of the Messiah should be considered Jewish.
This Section will address three basic objections that are often used to disqualify Jesus as a potential messianic contender. Ever since Judaism and Christianity emerged as distinct entities, these issues have helped solidify the Jewish understanding of the Messiah, and have contributed to the adamant rejection of the New Testament’s claims. Modern Jewish scholarship, however, has been discovering that some of these long entrenched positions are not nearly as ancient or binding as previously thought.
The first part of this Section will discuss the notion of pagan origins, the idea that the early movement (specifically Paul) borrowed from mystery religions and other non-Jewish sources to create a messianic figure that would die and rise again. The next two Sections address the attributes of Jesus, as expressed in the New Testament, that are considered most irreconcilable with Judaism: the role and the nature of the messiah.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE RESURRECTION AND THE JEWISH STUDY OF JESUS
1.2 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS AS A BOUNDARY MARKER
1.3 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS IN JEWISH HISTORY
1.4 GOAL AND PARAMETERS OF THIS STUDY
CHAPTER 2: PREVIOUS STUDIES
2.1 GENERAL STUDIES
2.2 SPECIFIC VANTAGE POINTS
2.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
2.4 MISCELLANEOUS
CHAPTER 3: PRESUPPOSITIONS AND/OR OBSTACLES
3.1 MIRACLES
3.2 TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
3.3 THE NEW TESTAMENT’S TREATMENT OF JEWS AND JUDAISM
3.4 RESURRECTION
3.5 THE MESSIAH
3.6 DUAL COVENANT THEOLOGIES
CHAPTER 4: JEWISH VIEWS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
4.1 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
4.2 FOCUS ON THE RESURRECTION
4.3 JEWISH HISTORY
4.4 HONORABLE MENTION
CHAPTER 5: SYNTHESIS
5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE INTERACTION
5.2 ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS
5.3 CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
